% Binary blob reduction policy
% Leah Rowe
% 4 January 2022 (updated 15 November 2022)

Introduction
============

This article describes the *principles* that govern the Libreboot project. For
information about *how those principles are applied in practise*, please read
this article instead: [Software and hardware freedom status for each mainboard
supported by Libreboot](../freedom-status.md)

Libreboot's policy is to provide as much software freedom as possible to each
user, on each and every bit of hardware supported, and to *support as much
hardware from coreboot as is feasible*; what this means is that you should
have the potential to study, modify and *share* all source code, documentation
or other such resources that make Libreboot what it is. Put simply, you should
have *control* of your own computing.

The *goal* of Libreboot is
to do exactly this, and help as many people as possible by automating the
configuration, compilation and installation of *coreboot* for *non-technical*
users, easing it further for the average user by providing user-friendly
instructions for everything. Essentially, Libreboot is a *coreboot
distribution*, in much the same way *Alpine Linux* is a Linux distribution!

The purpose of this document it to outline how that is brought about, and how
the project operates along this basis. *This* document is largely about the
ideology and it is therefore (mostly) non-technical; for technical information,
you can refer to the [Libreboot build system documentation](../docs/maintain/).

Current project scope
=====================

The libreboot project is concerned with what goes in the main boot flash IC, but
there are other pieces of firmware to take into consideration, as covered
in the [libreboot FAQ](../faq.md#what-other-firmware-exists-outside-of-libreboot).

Most critical of these are:

* Embedded controller firmware
* HDD/SSD firmware
* Intel Management Engine / AMD PSP firmware

What is a binary blob?
----------------------

A binary blob, in this context, is any executable for which no source code
exists, that you cannot study and modify in a reasonable manner. By definition,
all such blobs are *proprietary* in nature, and should be avoided if possible.

Specific binary blobs are also problematic, on most coreboot systems, but they
differ per machine. Read more on the FAQ, and on this page, for how we deal
with binary blobs in the Libreboot project.

For information about Intel Management Engine and AMD PSP, refer to the FAQ.

Blob *reduction* policy
=======================

Default configurations
----------------------

Coreboot, upon which Libreboot is based, is mostly libre software but does
require binary blobs on some platforms. A most common example might be raminit
(memory controller initialisation) or video framebuffer initialisation. The
coreboot firmware uses binary blobs for some of these tasks, on some mainboards,
but some mainboards from coreboot can be initialised with 100% libre source
code, which you can inspect, and compile for your use.

Libreboot deals with this situation in a *strict* and *principled* way. The
nature of this is what you're about to read.

The libreboot project has the following policy:

* If a blob *can* be avoided, it should be avoided. For example, if VGA ROM
  initialization otherwise does a better job but coreboot has *libre* init code
  for a given graphics device, that code should be used in libreboot, when
  building a ROM image. Similarly, if *memory controller initialization* is
  possible with a binary blob *or* libre code in coreboot, the *libre* code
  should be used in ROMs built by the Libreboot build system, and the *blob*
  for raminit should not be used; however, if no libre init code is available
  for said raminit, it is permitted and Libreboot build system will use the
  *blob*.
* Some nuance is to be observed: on some laptop or desktop configurations, it's
  common that there will be *two* graphics devices (for example, an nvidia and
  an intel chip, using nvidia optimus technology, on a laptop). It may be that
  one of them has libre init code in coreboot, but the other one does not. It's
  perfectly acceptable, and desirable, for libreboot to support both devices,
  and accomodate the required binary blob on the one that lacks native
  initialization.
* An exception is made for CPU microcode updates: they are permitted, and in
  fact *required* as per libreboot policy. These updates fix CPU bugs, including
  security bugs, and since the CPU already has non-libre microcode burned into
  ROM anyway, the only choice is either *x86* or *broken x86*. Thus, libreboot
  will only allow coreboot mainboard configurations where microcode updates
  are *enabled*, if available for the CPU on that mainboard.
* Intel Management Engine: in the libreboot documentation, words *must* be written
  to tell people how to *neuter* the ME, if possible on a given board.
  The `me_cleaner` program is very useful, and provides a much more secure ME
  configuration.
* Binary blobs should *never* be deleted, even if they are unused. In the
  coreboot project, a set of `3rdparty` submodules are available, with binary
  blobs for init tasks on many boards. These must *all* be included in libreboot
  releases, even if unused. That way, even if the Libreboot build system does
  not yet integrate support for a given board, someone who downloads libreboot
  can still make changes to their local version of the build system, if they
  wish, to provide a configuration for their hardware.

Generally speaking, common sense is applied. For example, an exception to the
minimalization might be if *blob* raminit and *libre* raminit are available, but
the *libre* one is so broken so as to be unusable. In that situation, the blob
one should be used instead, because otherwise the user might switch back to an
otherwise fully proprietary system, instead of using coreboot (via libreboot).

The *old* Libreboot policy was quite austere, banning *all* firmware blobs and,
consequently, Libreboot supported less hardware. The libreboot project merged
osboot into it, adopting its more pragmatic policy. The underlying message
behind Libreboot's new policy is this:

*Some* freedom is *better than none*. The old way Libreboot operated resulted
in less freedom for everyone, because Libreboot is really the *only* firmware
that's easy for the average person, but it only supported a limited amount of
hardware before. Lots of people have hardware that coreboot supports, and it
provides a lot more freedom than otherwise fully proprietary firmware, even if
the user does have to install a blob or two as part of their coreboot image.

Libreboot's newly pragmatic policy may also result in more people becoming
coreboot developers in the future, by acting as that crucial *bridge* between
*it* and non-technical people who just need a bit of help to get started.

Configuration
-------------

The principles above should apply to *default* configurations. However, libreboot
is to be *configurable*, allowing the user to do whatever they like.

It's natural that the user may want to create a setup that is *less* libre than
the default one in libreboot. This is perfectly acceptable; freedom is superior,
and should be encouraged, but the user's *freedom to choose* should also be
respected, and accomodated.

In other words, do not lecture the user. Just try to help them with their
problem! The goal of the libreboot project is simply to make coreboot more
accessible for otherwise non-technical users.

FREEDOM CATALOG
===============

A *blob status* page should also be made available, educating people about the
status of binary blobs on each machine supported by the Libreboot build system.

It is desirable to see a world where all hardware and software is libre, under
the same ideology as the Libreboot project. Hardware!?

Yes, hardware. RISC-V is a great example of a modern attempt at libre hardware,
often called *Open Source Hardware*.
It is a an ISA for the manufacture of a microprocessor. Many real-world
implementations of it already exist, that can be used, and there will only be
more.

Such *hardware* is still in its infancy. We should start a project that will
catalog the status of various efforts, including at the hardware level (even
the silicon level). Movements like OSHW and Right To Repair are extremely
important, including to our own movement which otherwise will
typically think less about hardware freedoms (even though it really, really
should!)

One day, we will live in a world where anyone can get their own chips made,
including CPUs but also every other type of IC. Efforts to make homemade
chip fabrication a reality are now in their infancy, but such efforts do
exist, for example, the work done by Sam Zeloof and the Libre Silicon project:

* <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7E8-0Ou69hwScPW1_fQApA>
* <http://sam.zeloof.xyz/>
* <https://libresilicon.com/>

(Sam literally makes CPUs in his garage)

Problems with RYF criteria
==========================

Libreboot previously complied with FSF RYF criteria, but it now adheres to a
much more pragmatic policy aimed at providing more freedom to more people, in a
more pragmatic way. You can read those guidelines by following this URL:

* FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines: **https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria**

Put simply, the RYF guidelines pertain to commercial products, with the
stipulation that they must not contain proprietary software, or known privacy
issues like backdoors.

The total exclusion of all proprietary software is currently not feasible. For
example, proprietary SDR firmware in WiFi chipsets, firmware in AHCI devices
like HDDs or SSDs, and the like. The FSF RYF guidelines state the following
exception, to mitigate this fact:

* "However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software."

This exception violates every principle the FSF stands for, *and it should be
rejected on ideological grounds*. The rest of libreboot's policy and overall
ideology expressed, in this article, will be based largely on that rejection.
The definition of *product software* is completely arbitrary; software is
software, and software should always be *libre*. Instead of making such
exceptions, more hardware should be encouraged, with help given to provide as
much freedom as possible, while providing education to users about any pitfalls
they may encounter, and encourage freedom at all levels. When an organisation
like the FSF makes such bold exceptions as above, it sends the wrong message,
by telling people essentially to sweep these other problems under the rug, just
because they involve software that happens to run on a "secondary processor".
If the software is possible to update by the user, then it should be libre,
regardless of whether the manufacturer *intended* for it to be upgraded or not.
Where it really *isn't* possible to update such software, proprietary or not,
advice should be given to that effect. Education is important, and the FSF's
criteria actively discourages such education; it creates a false hope that
everything is great and wonderful, just because the software on one arbitrary
level is all perfect.

This view of the FSF's, as expressed in the quoted paragraph, assumes that
there is primarily *one* main processor controlling your system. On many
modern computers, this is *no longer true*.

Libre *software* does not exist in a vacuum, but we had less freedom in the
past, especially when it came to hardware, so *software* was our primary focus.

The ability to study, adapt, share and use/re-use software freely is important,
but there is a lot of nuance when it comes to *boot firmware*, nuance which is
largely non-existent outside of firmware development, or kernel development.
Most typical application/system software is high level and portable, but boot
firmware has to be written for each specific machine, and due to the way
hardware works, there are many trade-offs made, including by the FSF when
defining what standards should apply *in practise*.

The fact that almost nobody talks about the EC firmware is *because* of the
Respects Your Freedom certification. In reality, the EC firmware is crucial
to user freedom, and ought to be free, but it is completely disregarded by
the FSF as *part of the hardware*. This is wrong, and the FSF should actively
actively encourage people to free it, on every laptop!

Other firmware currently outside the reach of the libreboot project are covered
in the libreboot FAQ page. For example, HDD/SSD firmware is covered in the FAQ.
Again, completely disregarded and shrugged off by the FSF.

The libreboot project will not hide or overlook these issues, because they are
indeed critical, but again, currently outside the scope of what the Libreboot
build system does. At the moment, the Libreboot build system concerns itself
just with coreboot (and payloads), but this ought to change in the future.

Examples of FSF *sweeping blobs under the rug*
----------------------------------------------

Over the years, there have been numerous cases where the FSF actively fails to
provide incentive for levels of software freedom, such as:

* TALOS II "OpenPOWER" workstation from Raptor Engineering USA. It contains a
  broadcom NIC inside it which requires firmware, and that firmware was non-free.
  The FSF were willing to ignore it, and certify the TALOS II product under RYF,
  but Timothy Pearson of Raptor Engineering had it freed anyway, without being
  told to. Hugo Landau reverse engineered the specification and Evan Lojewski
  wrote libre firmware. See:
  See: <https://www.devever.net/~hl/ortega> and <https://github.com/meklort/bcm5719-fw>
* FSF once endorsed the ThinkPad X200, as sold by [Minifree Ltd](https://minifree.org),
  which contains the Intel ME; the bootrom is still there, as is the ME
  coprocessor, but the ME is put into a disabled state via the Intel Flash
  Descriptor, and the ME firmware in flash is removed. However, the ME is an
  entire coprocessor which, with libre firmware, could be used for a great many
  things. In the Libreboot and coreboot projects, there has always been interest
  in this but the FSF disregards it entirely. The X200 product they certified
  came with Libreboot pre-installed.
* Libreboot has a utility written by I, Leah Rowe, that generates ICH9M flash
  descriptors and GbE NVM images from scratch. This is necessary to configure
  the machine, but these are binary blobs otherwise; the FSF would have been
  quite content to certify the hardware anyway since these were non-software
  blobs in a format fully documented by Intel (they are just binary configuration
  files), but I went ahead and wrote ich9gen anyway. With ich9gen, you can
  more easily modify the descriptor/gbe regions for your firmware image. See:
  <https://libreboot.org/docs/install/ich9utils.html> - libreboot also has this
* FSF once endorsed the ThinkPad T400 with Libreboot, as sold by Minifree. This
  machine comes in two versions: with ATI+Intel GPU, or only Intel GPU. If ATI
  GPU, it's possible to configure the machine so that either GPU is used. If the
  ATI GPU is to be used, a firmware blob is needed for initialization, though the
  driver for it is entirely libre. *The FSF* ignored this fact and endorsed the
  hardware, so long as Libreboot does not enable the ATI GPU or tell people how
  to enable it. The *Intel* GPU on that machine has libre initialization code by
  the coreboot project, and a fully libre driver in both Linux and BSD kernels.
  In the configuration provided by Libreboot, the ATI GPU is completely disabled
  and powered down.
* All Libreboot-compatible ThinkPads contain proprietary Embedded Controller
  firmware, which is user-flashable (*and intended for update by the
  manufacturer*). The FSF chose to ignore the EC firmware, under
  their *secondary processor* exemption. See:
  <http://libreboot.org/faq.html#ec-embedded-controller-firmware>

In all of the above cases, the FSF could have been stricter, and bolder, by
insisting that these *additional* problems for freedom were solved. They did
not. There are many other examples of this, but the purpose of this article is
not to list all of them (otherwise, a book could be written on the subject).

Problems with FSDG
------------------

<img tabindex=1 src="https://av.libreboot.org/firmware.png" /><span class="f"><img src="https://av.libreboot.org/firmware.png" /></span>

The FSF maintains another set of criteria, dubbed Free System Distribution
Guidelines (GNU FSDG)]

The FSDG criteria is separate from RYF, but has similar problems. FSDG is
what the FSF-endorsed GNU+Linux distros comply with. Basically, it bans
all proprietary software, including device firmware. This may seem noble, but
it's extremely problematic in the context of firmware. Food for thought:

* Excluding firmware blobs in the linux kernel is *bad*. Proprietary firmware
  is *also bad*. Including them is a wiser choice, if strong education is also
  provided about *why they are bad* (less freedom). If you expose them to
  the user, and tell them about it, there is greater incentive (by simple
  reminder of their existence) to reverse engineer and replace them.
* Firmware *in your OS kernel* is *good*. The FSF simultaneously gives the OK
  for hardware *with those same firmware blobs* if the firmware is embedded
  into a ROM/flash chip on the device, or embedded in some processor. If the
  firmware is on separate ROM/flash, it could still be replaced by the user via
  reverse engineering, but then you would probably have to do some soldering
  (replace the chip on the card/device). *If the firmware is loaded by the
  OS kernel, then the firmware is exposed to the user and it can be more
  easily replaced. FSF criteria in this regard encourages hardware designers
  to hide the firmware instead, making actual (software) freedom less likely!*

Besides this, FSDG seems OK. Any libre operating system should ideally not
have proprietary *drivers* or *applications*.

Hardware manufacturers like to shove everything into firmware because their
product is often poorly designed, so they later want to provide workarounds in
firmware to fix issues. In many cases, a device will already have firmware on it
but require an update supplied to it by your OS kernel.

The most common example of proprietary firmware in Linux is for wifi devices.
This is an interesting use-case scenario, with source code, because it could be
used for owner-controlled *software defined radio*.

The *Debian* way is ideal. The Debian GNU+Linux distribution is entirely libre
by default, and they include extra firmware if needed, which they have in a
separate repository containing it. If you only want firmware, it is
trivial to get installer images with it included, or add that to your installed
system. They tell you how to do it, which means that they are helping people
to get *some* freedom *rather than none*. This is an inherently pragmatic
way to do things, and it's now how Libreboot does it.

More context regarding Debian is available in this blog post:
<https://blog.einval.com/2022/04/19#firmware-what-do-we-do> - in it, the
author, a prominent Debian developer, makes excellent points about device
firmware similar to the (Libreboot) article that you're reading now. It's
worth a read! As of October 2022, Debian has voted to include device firmware
by *default*, in following Debian releases. It used to be that Debian excluded
such firmware, but allowed you to add it.

OpenBSD is very much the same, but they're clever about it: during the initial
boot, after installation, it tells you exactly what firmware is needed and
updates that for you. It's handled in a very transparent way, by
their `fw_update` program which you can read about here:

<https://man.openbsd.org/fw_update>

*Banning* linux-firmware specifically is a threat to freedom in the long term,
because new users of GNU+Linux might be discouraged from using the OS if their
hardware doesn't work. You might say: just buy new hardware! This is often not
possible for users, and the user might not have the skill to reverse engineer
it either.

More detailed insight about microcode
=====================================

To be clear: it is preferable that microcode be libre. The microcode on Intel
and AMD systems *are* proprietary. Facts and feelings rarely coincide; the
purpose of this section is to spread *facts*.

The libreboot build system now enables microcode updates *by default.*

Not including CPU microcode updates is an absolute disaster for system
stability and security.

Making matters worse, that very same text quoted from the FSF RYF criteria in
fact specifically mentions microcode. Quoted again for posterity:

*"However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The
exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level
processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after
the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside
a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA.
The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software."*

Here, it is discussing the microcode that is burned into *mask ROM* on the CPU
itself. It is simultaneously not giving the OK for microcode *updates* supplied
by either coreboot or the Linux kernel; according to the FSF, these are an
attack on your freedom, but the older, buggier microcode burned into ROM is OK.
This is absolutely inconsistent.

The CPU already has microcode burned into mask ROM. The microcode configures
logic gates in the CPU, to implement an instruction set, via special *decoders*
which are fixed-function; it is not possible, for example, to implement a RISCV
ISA on an otherwise x86 processor. It is only possible for the microcode to
implement x86, or *broken* x86, and the default microcode is almost always
*broken x86* on Intel/AMD CPUs; it is inevitable, due to the complexity of
these processors.

The basis of the FSF's disagreement about microcode *updates* is that they do
believe otherwise; Stallman himself expressed such ignorance to me, in an email
conversation that I had with him as of January 2nd, 2022. The FSF believes
that these x86 microcode updates (on Intel/AMD) allow you to completely create
a new CPU that is fundamentally different than x86. This is not true. It is also
not true that *all* instructions in x86 ISA are implemented with microcode. In
some cases, hardcoded circuitry is used! The microcode updates are more like
tiny one liner patches here and there in a git repository, by way of analogy.
To once again get in the head-space of the FSF: these updates cannot do the CPU
equivalent of re-factoring an entire codebase. They are *hot fixes*, nothing
more!

Not including these updates will result in an unstable/undefined state. Intel
themselves define which bugs affect which CPUs, and they define workarounds, or
provide fixes in microcode. Based on this, software such as the Linux kernel
can work around those bugs/quirks. Also, upstream versions of the Linux kernel
can update the microcode at boot time (however, it is recommend still to do it
from coreboot, for more stable memory controller initialization or “raminit”).
Similar can be said about AMD CPUs.

Here are some examples of where lack of microcode updates affected *Libreboot*,
forcing Libreboot to work around changes made upstream in coreboot, changes
that were *good* and made coreboot behave in a more standards-compliant manner
as per Intel specifications. Libreboot had to *break* coreboot to retain
certain other functionalities, on some GM45/ICH9M thinkpads:

<https://browse.libreboot.org/lbmk.git/plain/resources/coreboot/default/patches/0012-fix-speedstep-on-x200-t400-Revert-cpu-intel-model_10.patch?id=9938fa14b1bf54db37c0c18bdfec051cae41448e>

<https://browse.libreboot.org/lbmk.git/plain/resources/coreboot/default/patches/0018-Revert-cpu-intel-Configure-IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL-for-.patch?id=4b7be665968b67463ec36b9afc7e8736be0c9b51>

These patches revert *bug fixes* in coreboot, fixes that happen to break other
functionality but only when microcode updates are excluded. The most
technically correct solution is to *not* apply the above patches, and instead
supply microcode updates!

Pick your poison. Not adding the updates is *irresponsible*, and ultimately
futile, because you still end up with proprietary microcode, but you just get
an older, buggier version instead!

The libreboot build system *no longer* applies the two patches linked above!
Instead, CPU microcode updates are enabled by default, on the affected boards.
The result is superior IA32 feature control and added PECI support.

The *libreboot project* rejects the FSF's narrow, dogmatic view entirely.

This shift in project policy does not affect your freedom at all, because you
still otherwise have older, buggier microcode anyway. However, it does improve
system reliability by including the updates!

Such pragmatic policy is *superior* to the *dogma* that Libreboot users once
had to endure. Simply put, the Libreboot project aims to give users as much
freedom as is possible for their hardware; this was always the case, but this
mentality is now applied to [a lot] more hardware.

Other considerations
====================

Also not covered strictly by Libreboot: OSHW and Right To Repair. Freedom at
the silicon level would however be amazing, and efforts already exist; for
example, look at the RISCV ISA (in practise, actual fabrication is still
proprietary and not under your control, but RISCV is a completely libre CPU
design that companies can use, instead of having to use proprietary ARM/x86 and
so on). Similarly, Right To Repair (ability to repair your own device, which
implies free access to schematics and diagrams) is critical, for the same
reason that Libre Software (Right To Hack) is critical!

OSHW and Right To Repair are not covered at all by RYF (FSF's Respects Your
Freedom criteria), the criteria which Libreboot previously complied with.
RYF also makes several concessions that are ultimately damaging, such as
the *software as circuitry* policy which is, frankly, nonsensical. ROM is still
software. There was a time when the FSF didn't consider BIOS software a freedom
issue, just because it was burned onto a mask ROM instead of *flashed*; those
FSF policies ignore the fact that, with adequate soldering skills, it is trivial
to replace stand-alone mask ROM ICs with compatible flash memory.

Conclusion
==========

Compromise and nuance is the name of the game, even if you're the FSF. It is
completely unavoidable, but there are some who try to deny this fact and
pretend like things are as they'd prefer them to be, rather than how they
actually are in the real world.

Facts and *feelings* are usually very different things, and contradictory.

RYF isn't *wrong* per se, just flawed. It is correct in some ways and if
complied with, the result *does* give many freedoms to the user, but RYF
completely disregards many things that are now possible, including freedoms at
the hardware level (the RYF criteria only covers *software*). Those guidelines
are written with assumptions that were still true in the 1990s, but the world
has since evolved. The libreboot project rejects those policies in their
entirety, and instead takes a pragmatic approach.

The conclusion that should be drawn from all of this is as follows:

*Following* FSF criteria does not damage anything, but that criteria is very
conservative. Its exemptions should be *disregarded* and entirely ignored.
RYF is no longer fit for purpose, and should be rewritten to create
a *more strict* set of guidelines, without all the loopholes or exemptions.
As has always been the case, Libreboot tries to always go above and beyond, but
the Libreboot project does not see RYF as a *gold standard*. There are levels
of freedom possible now that the RYF guidelines do not cover at all, and in
some cases even actively discourage/dis-incentivize because it makes compromises
based on assumptions that are no longer true. 

Sad truth: RYF actively encourages *less* freedom, by not being bold enough.
It sets a victory flag and says *mission accomplished*, despite the fact
that the work is *far* from complete!

If followed *with exemptions unchallenged*, RYF may in some cases encourage
companies to *sweep under the rug* any freedom issues that exist, where it
concerns proprietary firmware not running on the host CPU (such as the
Embedded Controller firmware).

I propose that new guidelines be written, to replace RYF. These new guidelines
will do away with all exemptions/loopholes, and demand that *all* software be
libre on the machine, or as much as possible. Instead of only promoting products
that meet some arbitrary standard, simply catalog all systems on a grand
*database* of sorts (like h-node.org, but better), which will define exactly
what *hardware* **and** software issues exist on each device. Include Right to
Repair and OSHW (including things like RISCV) in the most "ideal"
standard machine; the gold standard is libre *silicon*, like what Sam Zeloof
and others are working on nowadays.

This new set of criteria should not attempt to hide or ignore *anything*. It
should encourage people to push the envelope and innovate, so that we can have
much *more* freedom than is currently possible. Necessity is the mother of all
invention, and freedom is an important goal in every aspect of life, not just
computing.

Don't call it "Respects Your Freedom" or something similar. Instead, call it
something like: the freedom catalog. And actually focus on hardware, not just
software!

In the year 2022 onwards, we can do better. The RYF program should be cancelled.
It is no longer fit for purpose.

Other resources
===============

Ariadne Conill's RYF blog post
------------------------------

Ariadne Conill, security team chair of *Alpine Linux*, posted a very robust
article about RYF, with similar points made when compared to *this* article.
However, Ariadne goes into detail on several other examples of problems with
the FSF RYF criteria; for example, it talks about the *Novena* product by
Bunnie.

It's worth a read! Link:

<https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/>

Hector Martin's RYF thread
--------------------------

Hector Martin, leader of the *Asahi Linux* project (for booting linux kernels
on M1 macbooks) wrote a very robust twitter thread criticizing the RYF criteria
and much of what he wrote inspired *this* article that you are reading. See:

<http://web.archive.org/web/20220326234344/https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168>

Article updates
===============

23 January 2022
---------------

Added link to Ariadne Conill's article.

21 January 2022
---------------

This article was updated on 21 January 2022, to add the section with examples
in the real world of FSF sweeping blobs under the rug (ATI T400 thinkpads,
ICH9M descriptors and TALOS II NIC firmware).

Also on 21 January 2022: added section about FSDG (criticisms of it).

Also on 21 January 2022: added link to Hector Martin's twitter thread.
